Taliban Jews flees Quebec from persecution

[Razgovory]

Well not in the anglophone world.

[grumbler]

AFAIK governments can't remove children from parents without due process and proper proof, whether "crazy religious sects" are involved or not.

Your statement is invalid in Russia, China, North korea, and Viperland.

[The Brain]

If a parent is a proper poof then remove away I say.

[Malthus]

Anti-Semitism!!!!!!11111

Malthus should really be ashamed of himself.

Oh I am.

But shame merely drives me to yet greater acts of depravity, I'm afraid. 

[viper37]

AFAIK governments can't remove children from parents without due process and proper proof, whether "crazy religious sects" are involved or not.

There has been due process.  But you don't wait 10 years in appeal court to remove children from crazy religious sects.

To elaborate because you obviously didn't read the story and simply focus on the "jew" part which seemed to have shocked you: Quebec's child services were about to intervene, so the sect moved to Ontario during the night, before due process could happen.

[viper37]

Anti-Semitism!!!!!!11111

I just don't like religious lunatics and fanatics.  Christians, muslims or jews, they're all the same to me when they're crazy, and they shouldn't be entitled to any specific considerations.

[Malthus]

Anti-Semitism!!!!!!11111

I just don't like religious lunatics and fanatics.  Christians, muslims or jews, they're all the same to me when they're crazy, and they shouldn't be entitled to any specific considerations.

Or, apparently, the rights of appeal available to non-lunatics. 

[viper37]

Or, apparently, the rights of appeal available to non-lunatics. 

Ok.  What's the usual mo in child's custody cases when the parents, with priors in similar cases, flee one province to another (or state, for the US) to interfere with social services actions?  Give the benefit of the doubt to the parents or slamm them as hard as the law will allow?

[Razgovory]

Anti-Semitism!!!!!!11111

I just don't like religious lunatics and fanatics.  Christians, muslims or jews, they're all the same to me when they're crazy, and they shouldn't be entitled to any specific considerations.

What about crazy nationalists?

[Malthus]

Or, apparently, the rights of appeal available to non-lunatics. 

Ok.  What's the usual mo in child's custody cases when the parents, with priors in similar cases, flee one province to another (or state, for the US) to interfere with social services actions?  Give the benefit of the doubt to the parents or slamm them as hard as the law will allow?

I have no idea, family law is not my thing.

Any evidence that granting a right of appeal is *not* normal in this situation?

[viper37]

I have no idea, family law is not my thing.

Any evidence that granting a right of appeal is *not* normal in this situation?

According to a lawyer (family and medical malpractice are her specialty) I met last summer, a Quebec judge would never grant child custody to a parent that tried to evade the law in the first place, appeal or no appeal, the children would be removed from these parent's care or placed under supervision.

The case of Myriam Bédard is slightly different since it involves one of the parent filing complaint for kidnapping, but it is revealing of the general attitude toward such parents: she was arrested in the US, her child put in the hands of social services in the US, then transferred to Canada to her father while Bédard was jailed, and later went to trial.  She did not have unsupervised contact with her child after that.

[Malthus]

I have no idea, family law is not my thing.

Any evidence that granting a right of appeal is *not* normal in this situation?

According to a lawyer (family and medical malpractice are her specialty) I met last summer, a Quebec judge would never grant child custody to a parent that tried to evade the law in the first place, appeal or no appeal, the children would be removed from these parent's care or placed under supervision.

The case of Myriam Bédard is slightly different since it involves one of the parent filing complaint for kidnapping, but it is revealing of the general attitude toward such parents: she was arrested in the US, her child put in the hands of social services in the US, then transferred to Canada to her father while Bédard was jailed, and later went to trial.  She did not have unsupervised contact with her child after that.

Being granted custody is a whole different thing from being granted a right to appeal. These folks are claiming their move had nothing to do with an attempt to evade Quebec jurisdiction. Presumably, they have a right to assert that argument in court, no?

[viper37]

Being granted custody is a whole different thing from being granted a right to appeal. These folks are claiming their move had nothing to do with an attempt to evade Quebec jurisdiction. Presumably, they have a right to assert that argument in court, no?

I'm not denying their right to defend themselves, or their right to appeal.

I am denying their right to keep the children, as if nothing happenned, while they make their argument in court.

Everyone is entitled to a fair defense, religious nut or not.  But if child services of one, heck, now even two, provinces, find sufficient evidences to remove some of the children from their parents, I don't see why the courts should let them keep their kids during the lenghty appeal process. 

If they weren't part of a religious sect, I'm betting on the fact the tribunal would have removed the kids from unfit parents.

[Malthus]

Being granted custody is a whole different thing from being granted a right to appeal. These folks are claiming their move had nothing to do with an attempt to evade Quebec jurisdiction. Presumably, they have a right to assert that argument in court, no?

I'm not denying their right to defend themselves, or their right to appeal.

I am denying their right to keep the children, as if nothing happenned, while they make their argument in court.

Everyone is entitled to a fair defense, religious nut or not.  But if child services of one, heck, now even two, provinces, find sufficient evidences to remove some of the children from their parents, I don't see why the courts should let them keep their kids during the lenghty appeal process. 

If they weren't part of a religious sect, I'm betting on the fact the tribunal would have removed the kids from unfit parents.

But you have exactly no evidence of that.

Your attempt to make a big deal of a routine stay pending appeal isn't creating much outrage. 

[viper37]

Your attempt to make a big deal of a routine stay pending appeal isn't creating much outrage. 

yet, you keep posting.